Extranodal Rosai-Dorfman Disease Presenting as an Epibulbar Tumor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe a case of an epibulbar tumor as a manifestation of Rosai-Dorfman Disease (RDD) and review the pertinent literature. METHODS: This was an interventional case report and literature review. A 19-year-old African-Brazilian man was referred for evaluation of a 12 x 11-mm subconjunctival mass at the temporal limbus OD. Intraocular pressure was normal, and funduscopy was unremarkable OU. Ultrasound biomicroscopy showed an ill-defined scleral homogeneous lesion at the temporal quadrant, without intraocular invasion. A superficial sclerokeratectomy was performed. RESULTS: Histopathologic evaluation revealed inflammatory aggregates composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and histiocytes. The histiocytes appeared pale, and some of them had intact lymphocytes and plasma cells within their cytoplasm. Russell bodies were also found. The histiocytes were positive for CD68 and S-100 and negative for lysozyme and CD1a. Special stains for microorganisms were all negative. Those findings were consistent with the diagnosis of extranodal RDD. Systemic workup failed to reveal lymphadenopathy or extranodal disease elsewhere. At the 14-month follow-up, there were no signs of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Although extranodal manifestations are common in RDD and the lack of lymph node involvement is rare, our study supports that whenever there is an epibulbar tumor as a manifestation of RDD, the absence of lymphadenopathy is characteristic. Only 2 of the 9 reported cases presented with lymphadenopathy. The presence of emperipolesis and S-100-positive histiocytes during histopathologic evaluation confirms the diagnosis even in the absence of lymphadenopathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".